Brussels, 04/04/2008 (Agence Europe) -The European Parliament is preparing to elaborate in greater detail and tighten the 'EU absorption capacity' criterion, as one of the four Copenhagen criteria to be respected when new countries join the EU. This fourth Copenhagen criterion, formulated by the European Council in 1993, has never before been defined in detail. In a draft report on the EU's enlargement strategy, to be voted upon by the EP's foreign affairs committee at the end of May 2008 (the vote in plenary is scheduled for the end of June 2008), rapporteur Elmar Brok (EPP-ED, Germany) says that what he calls the EU's 'integration capacity' is a key factor of which greater account should be taken in the future. The enlargement strategy should 'strike a balance' between the geostrategic interests of the EU and candidate countries on the one hand, and the EU's integration capacity on the other, explains the draft report, of which Europe has obtained a copy.
Elmar Brok says the EU's integration capacity measures the EU's ability at any particular time to decide and achieve its objectives. The rapporteur defines the EU's objectives as promoting economic and social progress and a high level of employment in its member states; - asserting its identity and its ability to act on the international scene; - defending the rights and interests of member states' nationals; - developing an area of freedom, justice security; - fully maintaining and building on its acquis communautaire; - upholding fundamental rights and freedoms, as laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights; - and preserving the EU's political, social and economic cohesion.
To this end, EU enlargement must be followed by a consolidation phase and 'serious reassessment of the EU's policies and means in order to ensure consensus around such policies', according to the rapporteur. Any future enlargement without consolidation 'could lead to an EU of multiple configurations'. Such a multi-speed Europe 'would have seriously detrimental implications for the EU's capacity to act' because it would weaken the EU institutions and the EU as a whole on the international stage, asserts Brok.
The rapporteur also calls for a 'more diversified range of external contractual frameworks' that the EU can offer to non-EU countries that want to join the club. Accession cannot be seen as the only solution for all countries bordering on the EU and aspiring to join the club in the medium to long-term, explained Brok in January (see EUROPE 9590). In his draft report, he moots the idea of 'concentric circles' outside the EU institutions to provide intermediate stages for candidate countries. For example, a 'European Economic Area Plus' (EEA+) or a 'European Commonwealth'. Countries like Ukraine and Moldova, which have no prospects of joining the EU for the moment but would like to join at some point in the future, should be able to benefit in the short term from an area in which common policies would be developed with the EU in domains like the economy, finance, trade, energy, transport, the environment, justice, security, immigration and education, explained Brok, welcoming the idea of a Union for the Mediterranean as a positive step in relations with the EU's southern neighbours. The European neighbourhood policy should be strengthened and expanded to respond to the aspirations of many neighbouring countries which are not, or do not want to be, covered by the EU's enlargement strategy, adds the rapporteur. (H.B.)